AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card PAPER Launch @ [H]

§kynet;1041820598 said:
Why do people care about a paper launch for a product that is clearly garbage and no one should purchase?
Click to expand...

We're fighting for our children and their children's future to not have to suffer a world of sketchy GPU launches.
 
Dayaks said:
Until supply is >> demand AMD won't lower prices. Fury X is consistently sold out, thus probably will be to. Personally I think it's due to production difficulties but that doesn't change the fact it can be hard to find one in stock.

Why is the Titan X even in this thread? Apples and Oranges? Most people that have Titan X's bought them months and months before the 980ti came out.

The price should be what the market can sustain. Since they are never in stock it seems priced about right.
Click to expand...

You nailed it. What I like about this is that it takes the profit away from scalpers who always take advantage of situations where supply is a lot less than demand. As an enthusiast, scalpers really suck.
 
3D printing can make SFF real fun, lots of sites prits ur 3D design, darn this want me to create a SFF build hith the shape of the starship discovery (start trek fan). Well its should be doabel, pretty close, with a bit cabeling, becouse with a riser card mitx bord and gpu should look like "---___"

A creative stop, this can get expensive
 
from what i see, i actually like the card, its freaking tiny and barely takes any power. but the price is absurd.

if my choice was a nano, X, or Ti, id take the Ti every single time at their current prices.
 
DracoNB said:
Because that wasn't a knock on the Titan price at all, they tried to justify its price point by saying "Yeah it is the best" even though it was barely any faster and like many other people would point out, an overclocked (even factory OC) 980 TI would do the same for much, much less.

Its just double standards. Fury X gets dissed and Titan X praised, all while 6 FPS difference between the two for $350 extra. Knock both or neither, its double standards to only point out one as overpriced for performance.
Click to expand...

Facts are facts based on subjective analysis. Also keep in mind that we spend many hours actually playing games on these cards while recording data so we very much have a subjective opinion as well.

DPI said:
Seriously? Same reason review sites were needed to verify "Fury X will be able to overclock like no tomorrow". How'd that turn out? AMD will say anything.
Click to expand...

Yeah, still can't wait for the next time I see Joe Macri face to face (one of my favorite people in the industry, he is a great guy to sit down and have drinks with) and ask him about those statements. Something happened in there somewhere. Joe would have never made that statement if he did not think it was true at the time.

dscherf said:
The Titan X is in this thread because someone is on a Witch(er) hunt.
Click to expand...

Good one, I actually LOL'ed.

§kynet;1041820598 said:
Why do people care about a paper launch for a product that is clearly garbage and no one should purchase?
Click to expand...

The card is far from garbage. I think the card is a great piece of engineering. However it is an overpriced piece of engineering that will only cater to a tremendously small subset of our demographic.

SeymourGore said:
We're fighting for our children and their children's future to not have to suffer a world of sketchy GPU launches.
Click to expand...

Hehe, got a chuckle out of me...

another-user said:
from what i see, i actually like the card, its freaking tiny and barely takes any power. but the price is absurd.

if my choice was a nano, X, or Ti, id take the Ti every single time at their current prices.
Click to expand...

You and me both brother.
 
Geez, I wanted AMD to get this right so that NVIDIA would have some competition. Hell I thought you made a typo by hitting 6 instead of 3. At $349 NVIDIA would crap their pants.

No one in their right mind should buy this card. WTF is AMD thinking? Sigh.

Anyone have an idea of how well the Fury line is selling?
 
Let the mismanagement show continue. Great card, absurd price.

You know, we have threads about Gameworks sabotaging AMD, but in my opinion, AMD's biggest saboteur is their own damn management.

This card has "fucking awesomesauce!" written all over it. It SHOULD have been a GeForce killer... But then it's going to be launched at a price that makes NO sense for most people. Hopefully - HOPEFULLY! AMD is just doing this to get a feel for market reaction, and hopefully they'll be like "Sike! Price is actually $400!"
 
PiSquared said:
Geez, I wanted AMD to get this right so that NVIDIA would have some competition. Hell I thought you made a typo by hitting 6 instead of 3. At $349 NVIDIA would crap their pants.

No one in their right mind should buy this card. WTF is AMD thinking? Sigh.

Anyone have an idea of how well the Fury line is selling?
Click to expand...

Far as I know AMD is selling out everything they can manufacture, which isn't all that much apparently. To me that explains the price IMO, AMD isn't counting on the Fury line to be a high volume product at all.
 
cinnamonandgravy said:
4xAF? :mad:

As resolution increases, low AF is even more apparent.
Click to expand...

Apparently Fiji takes a hit with hi AF @4k

Thats how they managed to beat the 980Ti and Titan in 4k.

I though it was a driver issue, but it may be something else.
 
PiSquared said:
Anyone have an idea of how well the Fury line is selling?
Click to expand...

Its too early to tell. But surely numbers will come up next quarter. AMD can claim Fury is flying off the shelves, but only because supply is still limited.
 
Yakk said:
Far as I know AMD is selling out everything they can manufacture, which isn't all that much apparently. To me that explains the price IMO, AMD isn't counting on the Fury line to be a high volume product at all.
Click to expand...

Stoly said:
Its too early to tell. But surely numbers will come up next quarter. AMD can claim Fury is flying off the shelves, but only because supply is still limited.
Click to expand...

Thanks - will be very interesting to see how it sells. I just don't understand why they didn't make Nano a $349 or even $399 part. Perhaps they're incapable of any level of mass production but that doesn't explain the disaster of a price.

I'm wondering how much of this was set before Dr. Su took over or if this is something that she spearheaded. If this is on her then I'm not so sure AMD is in good hands.
 
the nano product should be the one with the cut down stream processors. it makes so much more sense to cool a 3584 sp gpu with a tiny fan.

fury x - 4096 stream processors - 1050mhz - $650
fury - 4096 stream processors - 950mhz - $570
fury nano - 3584 stream processors - 850mhz - $500
 
So it's this for what will probably be around $1000-$1050 AUD... or I could buy a Gigabyte GTX 970 ITX currently on sale for $439. Yeah, I"ll keep my $600 thanks AMD. Powerfully stupid pricing right there.
 
DracoNB said:
If you are buying a card now, how is the Titan not way over priced?
Click to expand...

The Titan X is a boutique item IMO. you pay a heavy premium just for the best of the best, even if it isnt much better than 2nd place. it certainly isnt future proof, as any game needing ~12gb of vram will require much more power than the Titan X provides, and it certainly doesnt have enough power to fill its vram up with AA with current games. you buy it for bragging rights.

IMO, all current high end GPUs are overpriced, 980ti included. im not paying over $500 for a GPU that cant even play today's games at 4k. every high end GPU already has one foot in the grave.
 
DracoNB said:
Because that wasn't a knock on the Titan price at all, they tried to justify its price point by saying "Yeah it is the best" even though it was barely any faster and like many other people would point out, an overclocked (even factory OC) 980 TI would do the same for much, much less.

Its just double standards. Fury X gets dissed and Titan X praised, all while 6 FPS difference between the two for $350 extra. Knock both or neither, its double standards to only point out one as overpriced for performance.
Click to expand...

Facts are facts, TITAN X is the fastest single-GPU for Witcher 3. It allowed us to play with HairWorks settings enabled plus "Ultra" settings and "High" postproccessing with HBAO+, basically everything turned on at 1440p. The 980 Ti could not do this.

We are aware the 980 Ti's performance position, and price. That is why we concluded it is the better value over the TITAN X in the conclusion. It's price and performance, is certainly a better "value."

I think you are reading into things that are not there and dismissing the gameplay experience advantages between the 980 Ti and TITAN X in a game like this.
 
PiSquared said:
Thanks - will be very interesting to see how it sells. I just don't understand why they didn't make Nano a $349 or even $399 part. Perhaps they're incapable of any level of mass production but that doesn't explain the disaster of a price.

I'm wondering how much of this was set before Dr. Su took over or if this is something that she spearheaded. If this is on her then I'm not so sure AMD is in good hands.
Click to expand...

The timetable for the current product line was most likely all decided way before Dr. Su moved to the CEO position. It's an interesting decision to go for a more advanced tech knowing the risk you probably won't be able to make or sell as many of them (remember AMD has been working with HBM for years so they knew what they were getting into). But also from doing so getting a good head start on the market, and acquiring business deals, on the generation following it. Hawaii while not being in a top position is more than holding its own, and the 295x2 is still the top card.

As for the pricing, if you know you won't make enough anyways, might as well mark it up yourself instead of the retailers doing it.
 
AMD lost their fucking minds. I see it a lot in corporations these days. Many companies get away with it because of lack of competition but when your competition has a better product you have to lower your price to be competitive. AMD used to know that. AMD used to make very price competitive products. WTF are they thinking. Everything in the 300 series and fury series are overpriced. They are basically tacking on the price of water cooling to this card because it is small. That's fucking retarded. If I was going to make a mini htpc I would still go with the fury x because it will probably be quieter and keep things cooler. I see these cards being wanted by maybe 10 people in the world. AMD ruined my day. Nvidia may be a bunch of dicks but AMD is a bunch of retards. Kind of reminds me of the choices we have for presidents right now. I really wanted to go AMD really bad for my next card but it seems like they went out of their way to let me down. Its not that the cards are bad, its that they are priced not to sell.

I just wanted to add that I haven't had an NVidia card in my case since the 88000gtx. I bought a amd 270x to hold me over till the 300 series and I really have the bug to upgrade and AMD let me down. Last year bitcoin made them unattractive, this time AMD made themselves unattractive.
 
Last edited:
Here's my take -

Fury is AMD's first attempt at creating a premium luxury GPU brand. NVidia already has this type of association (with or without TItan branding). AMD is basically pricing up public perception of the new Fury brand.

From a corporate perspective, this makes a lot of since. In many cases (look at Apple), perception is stronger than reality. AMD needs to move away from being perceived as the cheap, discount brand (deserved or not). Fury's pricing structure allows for this.

Additionally, AMD is finally starting at a high price before getting into price cuts. Historically, they've priced lower than NVidia and still wound up cutting prices again. It should be pretty obvious that such a pricing strategy is stupid and is part of the reason AMD is where it is today (excessively selling the discount image to customers). In fact, I am hopeful that this decision is coming from the top because it is the first time AMD is actually taking itself seriously as a GPU competitor (from a pricing and premium brand perspective).

Think about it this way - at $650.00, AMD's margins are probably pretty good. They will sell everything they can make for the first few runs (because ultimately, the performance is good if not great and there are no glaring show stopping flaws). If at some point they need to cut prices, they are cutting from a higher margin $650 vs. a lower or even no margin $499 (or less). This is pretty much textbook "how you are supposed to run a company" pricing strategy.

At the end of the day, I think Fury pricing is good for AMD as a company, and probably less good for consumers. But it is the ONLY way they are going to make money in this market (having a perceived premium product priced as a premium product). From there, Fury should create more of a halo for AMD as a company overall (i.e., hey this is the same company that made that luxury Fury product).

So, although I have no vested interest, I hope AMD can sell as many of the things as possible at these prices before having to cut. I hope this gives them enough breathing room to continue to field competitive products so that competition can continue in the market place. And I hope this strategy gets pushed into the CPU market when Zen is ready (it just needs to be "close" to charge Intel i7 level pricing).

Is this a good buy for consumers? Probably not. More meh. But if AMD can move some volume, more power to them. This is more of a "business first" launch than a power to the people launch. Good on AMD. It's about damn time.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Let's get back on topic, this thread is for the Nano please.
Click to expand...

There isn't much to discuss on the nano since it hasn't been launched.

That said,

Are you going to compare it to only small form factor boards like the 970 Mini-ITX? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125706

If so, if its only a few FPS faster will you also say something like "If you want the best experience from a small form factor, the Fury Nano is your best bet" or will you denounce it because its $350 more?

Thats why I asked about the Titan X vs 980 TI. You've said that for performance you are willing to spend $350 for 2fps, will that stay the same with Nano form factor?
 
Looks like this card is aimed exclusively at owners of the CM Elite 110, Lian-Lis stubbier offerings, and their respective Rosewill knockoffs. Everyone else who isn't an oxygen thief will likely purchase an alternative Team Green or Team Red card.

I like the idea behind the card but not the price. Maybe we'll see more like this style next gen with consumer friendly pricing.
 
okay wait.. they are going too sell this for $650.. and it being just a reference card.. AMD what the hell you doing..I mean $600 maybe, but I was thinking like $500 for it.. I know this card isn't cheap too make, but who in their right mind is going to pay $650 for the Nano when you can get a better card for the same price and it's water cooled.. It makes no sense at all.... I was waiting on the price and news of the Nano before I made my decision to get a video card, forget it, Radeon 390 it is...
 
This is like selling a $100k Camero...
All that plastic isn't worth $100k... Six hundred and fif..

Is there a TI that stays under 75C on load?
 
Competition_575px.jpg
Click to expand...


2f844cb5-e7db-4b05-8448-10ecfaf31249.jpg


$649
Click to expand...

latest





lol_ricky_gervais.gif
 
Dayaks said:
Until supply is >> demand AMD won't lower prices. Fury X is consistently sold out, thus probably will be to. Personally I think it's due to production difficulties but that doesn't change the fact it can be hard to find one in stock.

Why is the Titan X even in this thread? Apples and Oranges? Most people that have Titan X's bought them months and months before the 980ti came out.

The price should be what the market can sustain. Since they are never in stock it seems priced about right.
Click to expand...

QFT. People are willing to pay so let them. And good for AMD for not bending over backwards to sell itself short. The high end video card market is not where good buys are to be had. AMD has many other products that fulfill that niche.
 
If anyone is curious how I would re-design the AMD lineup this year, I have my opinions, these are my own, but I think they make some sense.

Firstly, I would not have release re-branded 390 and 390X. I would however have kept the re-branded 285 to 380. IN fact, I would have increased the memory performance even higher than they did.

Fury X - I would price this card at $549. It offers better performance than a GTX 980, but doesn't perform as well as a 980 Ti. Therefore, this price right between the GTX 980 and 980 Ti makes a lot of sense. The price is justified because it does allow a better experience than a GTX 980, so the higher price would make sense. But, it isn't near 980 Ti performance, so the price is lower than 980 Ti by $100. This gives gamers a great alternative between 980 and 980 Ti.

Fury - I would keep the specs the Fury is at, and release the card at $449. At this price it would give the GTX 980 a run for its money being $50 cheaper MSRP. 980 was popular, and AMD really needed to target competition with that card, the Fury would have been perfect to do so with. The Fury would offer the same, if not a little better, performance than 980 for $50 cheaper.

Nano - I would price this card around $329, it would take the place of the 390X/390 position. I would make the Nano the same cut down specs as the Fury, same exact shader count, texture units, rops and then do my magical TDP monitoring to keep it within a target power performance. This would still be a 6" card, and would run even cooler and more power efficient than the current Nano making a real "wow" factor in this price range. This card would sit between the 970 and 980 on performance. It would give the GTX 970 a run for its money.

It would also bring Fiji architecture and latest techonlogy down to more users. You'd now have the latest GCN filling the high-end to midrange, and get rid of the confusion of the fact that 390/390X is a Hawaii GCN 1.1 part. You'd fill this space with your brand new GCN Fiji technology, as it should be today and end the confusion that the "new" 390/X is actually older technology than the 380! In this way, from the 380 up the scale it would all be the latest GCN architecture.

Having a small card, that runs super cool and power efficient sitting where the 390/X is, replacing them, giving the 970 a run for its money would be a real show stopper. People would notice. This card would sell.

Then you have a nice lineup for cards, 380 (with improved memory clocks) to Nano, to Fury to Fury X. Everything below 380 can be the other re-brands we have now.

This would be my lineup.
 
DracoNB said:
There isn't much to discuss on the nano since it hasn't been launched.

That said,

Are you going to compare it to only small form factor boards like the 970 Mini-ITX? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125706

If so, if its only a few FPS faster will you also say something like "If you want the best experience from a small form factor, the Fury Nano is your best bet" or will you denounce it because its $350 more?

Thats why I asked about the Titan X vs 980 TI. You've said that for performance you are willing to spend $350 for 2fps, will that stay the same with Nano form factor?
Click to expand...
No because Titan came first. If Nano or Fury hit before the 980Ti or Titan then it would be getting all the accolades and gold awards. Oh and Titan is a premium product so it can be priced at whatever point Nvidia wants.
Brent_Justice said:
Fury X - I would price this card at $549.
Click to expand...

Then you should be instantly fired by the board because Fury X is in short supply.
 
Brent_Justice said:
If anyone is curious how I would re-design the AMD lineup this year, I have my opinions, these are my own, but I think they make some sense.

Firstly, I would not have release re-branded 390 and 390X. I would however have kept the re-branded 285 to 380. IN fact, I would have increased the memory performance even higher than they did.

Fury X - I would price this card at $549. It offers better performance than a GTX 980, but doesn't perform as well as a 980 Ti. Therefore, this price right between the GTX 980 and 980 Ti makes a lot of sense. The price is justified because it does allow a better experience than a GTX 980, so the higher price would make sense. But, it isn't near 980 Ti performance, so the price is lower than 980 Ti by $100. This gives gamers a great alternative between 980 and 980 Ti.

Fury - I would keep the specs the Fury is at, and release the card at $449. At this price it would give the GTX 980 a run for its money being $50 cheaper MSRP. 980 was popular, and AMD really needed to target competition with that card, the Fury would have been perfect to do so with. The Fury would offer the same, if not a little better, performance than 980 for $50 cheaper.

Nano - I would price this card around $329, it would take the place of the 390X/390 position. I would make the Nano the same cut down specs as the Fury, same exact shader count, texture units, rops and then do my magical TDP monitoring to keep it within a target power performance. This would still be a 6" card, and would run even cooler and more power efficient than the current Nano making a real "wow" factor in this price range. This card would sit between the 970 and 980 on performance. It would give the GTX 970 a run for its money.

It would also bring Fiji architecture and latest techonlogy down to more users. You'd now have the latest GCN filling the high-end to midrange, and get rid of the confusion of the fact that 390/390X is a Hawaii GCN 1.1 part. You'd fill this space with your brand new GCN Fiji technology, as it should be today and end the confusion that the "new" 390/X is actually older technology than the 380! In this way, from the 380 up the scale it would all be the latest GCN architecture.

Having a small card, that runs super cool and power efficient sitting where the 390/X is, replacing them, giving the 970 a run for its money would be a real show stopper. People would notice. This card would sell.

Then you have a nice lineup for cards, 380 (with improved memory clocks) to Nano, to Fury to Fury X. Everything below 380 can be the other re-brands we have now.

This would be my lineup.
Click to expand...

That makes a huge amount of sense. At $549 I probably would have bought a Fury X instead of my 980. A $349 Nano would give me a serious itch to build a SFF PC for my living room.
 
Derangel said:
That makes a huge amount of sense.
Click to expand...
It makes ZERO sense on a limited supply GPU. That's why AMD is going after the high end first on their HBM equipped GPUs. Sell all they make at a premium, smart business. When volume of HBM ramps up AMD can filter the tech down to other products, it is insane to take expensive, limited supply tech and put it in a lower end product.

And people complain AMD is not making any money, well damn the solution is to make less money.
 
I wouldn't have used HBM since even if people wanted these cards in mass quantities AMD can't deliver.

Also there's no real advantage to HBM over GDDR at 4GB. It's basically a gimmick that screws AMDs production.
 
Dayaks said:
Also there's no real advantage to HBM over GDDR at 4GB.
Click to expand...

Except form factor, simpler trace routing, gaining experience with the new memory, much lower power consumption. But otherwise no advantage at all.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
If it's performance competes with 970 and 980 (non-Ti) then yeah it's a mid-range card, like the Fury X. But the nano comes with a huge price premium and LESS features (HDMI 1.4 and 4 GB memory limitations come to mind)
Click to expand...

If it kicks around the 980's performance, that is not a mid-range card. A mid-range card costs $249-349 MAX! Not $500!
 
§kynet;1041820993 said:
It makes ZERO sense on a limited supply GPU. That's why AMD is going after the high end first on their HBM equipped GPUs. Sell all they make at a premium, smart business. When volume of HBM ramps up AMD can filter the tech down to other products, it is insane to take expensive, limited supply tech and put it in a lower end product.

And people complain AMD is not making any money, well damn the solution is to make less money.
Click to expand...

It's good that AMD is able to sell everything they can produce right now but that isn't going to last forever. I find what Brent said to make sense for when AMD catches up to current demand. AMD's production cost is their problem, not the end user's.
 
§kynet;1041821007 said:
Except form factor, simpler trace routing, gaining experience with the new memory, much lower power consumption. But otherwise no advantage at all.
Click to expand...

If the cost is higher and your performance doesn't change... And you can't make revenue because you can't produce it. There's no advantage.

This size nonsense is beyond me too. It's a video card. Most SFF cases like the 250d can fit full size cards. The people that care about a mini card has to be so small...
 
Derangel said:
AMD's production cost is their problem, not the end user's.
Click to expand...
You need to rethink this. The end user finances the production of said product, 100% on the consumer.
Dayaks said:
If the cost is higher and your performance doesn't change... And you can't make revenue because you can't produce it. There's no advantage.
Click to expand...
So it is your assertion that HBM give AMD no advantage versus GDDR5.
 
Dayaks said:
If the cost is higher and your performance doesn't change... And you can't make revenue because you can't produce it. There's no advantage.

This size nonsense is beyond me too. It's a video card. Most SFF cases like the 250d can fit full size cards. The people that care about a mini card has to be so small...
Click to expand...

The 250D is not a SFF case, it's 28L.

While you're correct that the SFF market is small, it is seeing increased growth, and manufacturers are beginning to take notice. Is is not an accident that companies like Fractal and Corsair are now sourcing SFX PSUs to be released in the near future for use in sub 20L designs.

I see the Nano as a prelude to what Pascal and Arctic Islands will likely offer in a more complete fashion.
 
§kynet;1041821032 said:
So it is your assertion that HBM give AMD no advantage versus GDDR5.
Click to expand...
AMD is is a CPU/GPU manufacturer not a memory developer. Personally, I wish they had put all of their HBM efforts into improving their GPU architecture instead... to compete better with Nvidia.
Presently, HBM does nothing but reduce PCB size and save about 50W over GDDR5. It also limits them to 4 GB on these first-gen cards, as well as limited supply. AMD is playing the long game on HBM but that does nothing to help them today.

AMD should put more effort into making hardware that people actually want to buy. HBM was a huge waste of time and money for them, but then again I don't know any details about how much they actually contributed to its development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top